I suspect BTW the very rich won't ever pay these taxes as there are always ways to restructure the wealth or simply move it elsewhere. I know this is done in the UK. So what it does is punish the middle classes the most.
Yes, because that's a transfer to different people. That's not a problem.
The problem is that it's not just treated as income to the recipients—which it manifestly is—with the income tax then being modified to include both advance recognition and windfall spreading options to allow taxpayers to deal with irregular income in a fair basis with more regular income.
This is also the problem with capital gains tax. And its not th people who have the kind of income that avoids regular income taxation that are getting screwed by that.
Sorry I don't agree. The tax has already been paid when the person was alive. There shouldn't be a an additional tax on top because it is given to others after they died. Which is what is happening.
> The problem is that it's not just treated as income to the recipients—which it manifestly is—with the income tax then being modified to include both advance recognition and windfall spreading options to allow taxpayers to deal with irregular income in a fair basis with more regular income.
The problem wouldn't exist if the tax was abolished.
> This is also the problem with capital gains tax. And its not the people who have the kind of income that avoids regular income taxation that are getting screwed by that.
Again another case of a problem that wouldn't exist if the tax (capital gains) was abolished.
I mean, reductively, saying something can't be taxed twice doesn't make any sense because all taxes work like that. A company sells products, those sales (and/or value add) are taxed. That money is paid as income, then that income is taxed. That income is spent on goods or services, where the sale (and/or value add) is taxed. Ad infinitum.
A reasonable tax on inheritance, growing with wealth, makes sense in a society that has no effective wealth caps. Otherwise the "haves" accumulate wealth, which accumulates wealth, which accumulates wealth. By imposing a tax on wealth that is not earned, but entirely dependent on the circumstances of one's birth, you create a redistribution scheme that's... Quite fair?
No living person has their labor stolen, some redistribution is achieved, but the heir still receives a significant benefit.
Well in the UK, the civil services are crap, the police don't do anything, the NHS waiting times are extensive (my mother is waiting for over 2 years for knee surgery), the roads are full of pot holes, and we have more admirals than warships.
So the money doesn't seem to be used effectively. I don't know what you mean by equitable.
> I mean, reductively, saying something can't be taxed twice doesn't make any sense because all taxes work like that. A company sells products, those sales (and/or value add) are taxed. That money is paid as income, then that income is taxed. That income is spent on goods or services, where the sale (and/or value add) is taxed. Ad infinitum.
It almost like the tax man takes at every opportunity. Describing that they tax you many times isn't a justification for more taxes.
> A reasonable tax on inheritance, growing with wealth, makes sense in a society that has no effective wealth caps. Otherwise the "haves" accumulate wealth, which accumulates wealth, which accumulates wealth.
I don't think it is moral or fair to tax beneficiaries of inheritance. It is essentially a gift from the deceased to the beneficiaries.
That the entire point of building up an inheritance for your family/beneficiaries, is that you hope to leave your children better place. I don't know what is fundamentally wrong with building up wealth generationally.
> By imposing a tax on wealth that is not earned, but entirely dependent on the circumstances of one's birth, you create a redistribution scheme that's... Quite fair?
No it isn't fair. The wealth was earned at some point in time, presumably legally. I don't understand why it matters that the person receiving it may have done nothing more than been a family member, family friend or even someone/some organisation that the deceased thought was deserving? When they were alive it was their choice who would receive upon death.
That's not what we're discussing. Nor is it even the country we're discussing? The Netherlands has the second highest quality of life in the world.
> It almost like the tax man takes at every opportunity.
Taxes are a requirement of any functional nation. This just sounds like you have no intention of having a real discussion on tax policy.
> It is essentially a gift from the deceased to the beneficiaries.
Yes, that is what inheritance is. And gifts are taxed. At a higher rate than inheritance!
> I don't know what is fundamentally wrong with building up wealth generationally.
Oh, please, don't straw man me.
Nothing is wrong with generational wealth. Looking at the US, you can see how important it is for social mobility, directly affecting the outcomes of minority communities for decades to even centuries. And through systems like the private healthcare and nursing industries, how it's being targeted to extract every last cent out of American citizens before they die and can hand it off to their loved ones.
But are you seriously pretending you don't know what's wrong with a forever growing wealth inequality? Because inheritance taxes only meaningfully apply to the wealthy. We aren't talking working class folk here.
Are we supposed to wonder how will they ever survive on a mere €820.000 that they did nothing to earn? Despite the fact that being raised by someone with that kind of wealth statistically implies that they'll also be inheriting things like property. And that they will have a more stable upbringing with a better education and opportunities their working class peers would never get.